Mailing-List: contact log4j-user-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Log4J Users List" <log4j-user@jakarta.apache.org>
Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20030814122758.00a2b4f0@mail.dalmatian.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:37:53 -0700
To: "Log4J Users List" <log4j-user@jakarta.apache.org>
From: Larry Young <lyoung@dalmatian.com>
Subject: RE: discreet logging types - revisited
In-Reply-To: <9C5166762F311146951505C6790A9CF8A6EA13@US-VS1.corp.mpi.com
 >
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Yoav,

         Yes, these are both ideas that I've been looking at.  If I change 
Logger (either wrap or create a new one), then I will probably use a 
separate repository to avoid the problems that Ceki discusses in his book.

         As for Filters, the problem there is that Filters are attached to 
Appenders, not to Loggers.  In my first post two weeks ago, Paul responded 
with the same suggestion, but since the permitted types will vary by each 
logger, I would have to either build a parallel hierarchy to hold the types 
for each logger, or define appenders for each logger that I wanted to 
change the permitted types (and that could get rather ugly).  I understand 
how to use MDC to tag the LogEvent with the type, but then I need to see if 
that logger should allow that type, that needs to be stored either with the 
logger, or in yet another "global" collection keyed by logger.

         And again, I'm not trying to say that levels are bad, it just that 
they are only one way of determining what should get logged.  Thanks for 
the suggestions!

--- regards ---
Larry


At 03:07 PM 8/14/03 -0400, you wrote:

>Howdy,
>I'm a fan of the Level system and its relationship, so no I'm not
>interested in your suggested mods, but I wanted to throw out an idea or
>two for you that might reduce the need for coding:
>- Can you use separate logger repositories as your "types" ?
>- Can you use a Filter attached to the root logger that matches based on
>"type" as an MDC attribute of the logging event?
>
>Yoav Shapira
>Millennium ChemInformatics
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Larry Young [mailto:lyoung@dalmatian.com]
> >Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 3:10 PM
> >To: log4j-user@jakarta.apache.org
> >Subject: discreet logging types - revisited
> >
> >Hi all,
> >
> >         Well, I'm still looking at how to use discreet logging types
> >instead of the Level to control what messages are "enabled".  The
> >difficulty resides in the need to enable/disable certain log types by
> >package/class name.  BTW, I posted my original message on 7/30/03 if
>you
> >are interested.
> >
> >         Basically, the way I've always built logging systems is by
> >defining a set of discreet types to be used by the developers, and then
> >allowed those types to be enabled/disabled individually.  Unfortunately
>the
> >"level" concept is fairly hard-wired into log4j.  I say "unfortunately"
>not
> >because levels are bad, but because there is no way to expand or
>get-around
> >them with an alternate approach.  Actually, levels can be viewed as a
>set
> >of discreet types with an implicit ordering/relationship between them,
>but
> >in log4j, there is no way to control the relationship test.
> >
> >         Before I go on too much (which I do!), is there anyone else
>who is
> >interested in discussing the idea of replacing the "level" with
>"discreet
> >types" in the log4j package??  Basically I'm at a point where I need to
> >make some decisions regarding how to proceed.  If other members are
> >interested in pursuing this idea, then I'll explore the idea of
>modifying
> >the Logger classes (et. al.) to replace the level with types, with the
> >intention of folding those changes back into the product.  But if no
>one is
> >interested, I'll just make some small mods to Logger for my own
>purposes
> >and handle it as a "one-off" type situation.  In either case, I intend
>to
> >move forward with log4j!  It has many features which I'm planning to
>use in
> >the future (like that IMAppender being discussed!!).  Mostly its a
>matter
> >of whether I do a complete implementation to replace levels, or just a
> >quick fix to solve my problems.
> >
> >         Thoughts, comments ???  Ceki, as one of the main champions for
> >log4j, do you have any input?
> >
> >--- regards ---
> >Larry
> >
> >
> >--------------------------
> >Larry Young
> >The Dalmatian Group
> >www.dalmatian.com
> >
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> >For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>This e-mail, including any attachments, is a confidential business 
>communication, and may contain information that is confidential, 
>proprietary and/or privileged.  This e-mail is intended only for the 
>individual(s) to whom it is addressed, and may not be saved, copied, 
>printed, disclosed or used by anyone else.  If you are not the(an) 
>intended recipient, please immediately delete this e-mail from your 
>computer system and notify the sender.  Thank you.
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@jakarta.apache.org

--------------------------
Larry Young
The Dalmatian Group
www.dalmatian.com 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@jakarta.apache.org